4 ms·

I created an website that shows 100+ short small videos on a page. I tested it with common browsers on various platforms. And decided to load only the first 5 v

by frik 11y ago

I created an website that shows 100+ short small videos on a page. I tested it with common browsers on various platforms. And decided to load only the first 5 videos as HTML5 videos and show the rest as animated GIFs. The optimized GIFs have custom color pallet, the file size is slightly bigger, but the performance gain is enormous.

mtgx 11y ago
That's interesting, considering there's a whole new trend of websites dedicated to converting heavy GIF files into small video files instead - sites such as https://gfycat.com/about https://gfycat.com/about
- ethbro 11y ago
  Side question: is anyone aware of any computer-vision tools that effectively produce a visual comparison of two different video (where "video" includes GIF) formats? It seems like something that would be quite possible, with a number of applications, but don't know offhand of any tools like that.
- frik 11y ago
  It seems the easier (older) the video codec format the bigger is the file but also the less CPU/GPU resources are required to play them. Remember Windows 95 played AVI videos e.g. in the file copying dialog. The AVI video consisted as a series of BMP pictures. All magenta colored areas where interpreted as transparent. (info about the special bitmap based AVI format: http://www.endurasoft.com/techtalk/AVI.aspx http://www.endurasoft.com/techtalk/AVI.aspx ) A 486 66 MHz with 4MB memory could play that short small videos. The Win95 CD contained two movie trailers afaik with an early Intel video codec, it took a more powerful Pentium 1 CPU to play them at 320x200 (Intel Indeo codec: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeo ). Coming back to GIFs and MP4/HTML5 videos. GIF is an old format from ca 1989, showing them is less CPU intensive than playing MP4 videos. Firefox on PC and all mobile browsers on iPad and Android that I tried had serious performance issues with 100+ very small videos. Interesting that GIFs mobile devices with even just 512MB memory can show at least 100 GIF videos (each 5-15 MB filesize) on one page.
- SquareWheel 11y ago
  The bizarre thing is that the vast majority of these "gifs" come from a video source in the first place, so all they're doing is converting from a video, to a gif, back to a video format. This process destroys the quality and sound channel. Strange how sites like reddit eat this up.
  - rawTruthHurts 11y ago
    Not that reddit nor its average user are specially concerned about quality in general.
  - wodenokoto 11y ago
    The reason why funny videos as gif became big is the promise they give you that they are funny without sound, so you can play them in the office or during commute without fear that something will suddenly be noisy, or that something won't be easily understood. When gifs started breaking the promise of being fast to load, due to people sharing fairly large res animations, sites such as gfycat tried to replicate the promise of silent sketches, but with more modern technology. This is not bizare at all. Less is sometimes more.
    - SquareWheel 11y ago
      This is all certainly accomplishable without converting the video file twice. <video> tags support a mute attribute, and with minor javascript you can set a looping playback from a timestamp. Best of both worlds if you really want that. I can't help but feel these tools are evolving in the wrong direction. And not even in a "Stop liking what I don't like!" kind of way; simply that the solution could have been reached with far fewer steps.

by frik 11y ago

mtgx 11y ago

That's interesting, considering there's a whole new trend of websites dedicated to converting heavy GIF files into small video files instead - sites such as https://gfycat.com/about https://gfycat.com/about

ethbro 11y ago
Side question: is anyone aware of any computer-vision tools that effectively produce a visual comparison of two different video (where "video" includes GIF) formats? It seems like something that would be quite possible, with a number of applications, but don't know offhand of any tools like that.
frik 11y ago
It seems the easier (older) the video codec format the bigger is the file but also the less CPU/GPU resources are required to play them. Remember Windows 95 played AVI videos e.g. in the file copying dialog. The AVI video consisted as a series of BMP pictures. All magenta colored areas where interpreted as transparent. (info about the special bitmap based AVI format: http://www.endurasoft.com/techtalk/AVI.aspx http://www.endurasoft.com/techtalk/AVI.aspx ) A 486 66 MHz with 4MB memory could play that short small videos. The Win95 CD contained two movie trailers afaik with an early Intel video codec, it took a more powerful Pentium 1 CPU to play them at 320x200 (Intel Indeo codec: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeo ). Coming back to GIFs and MP4/HTML5 videos. GIF is an old format from ca 1989, showing them is less CPU intensive than playing MP4 videos. Firefox on PC and all mobile browsers on iPad and Android that I tried had serious performance issues with 100+ very small videos. Interesting that GIFs mobile devices with even just 512MB memory can show at least 100 GIF videos (each 5-15 MB filesize) on one page.
SquareWheel 11y ago
The bizarre thing is that the vast majority of these "gifs" come from a video source in the first place, so all they're doing is converting from a video, to a gif, back to a video format. This process destroys the quality and sound channel. Strange how sites like reddit eat this up.
- rawTruthHurts 11y ago
  Not that reddit nor its average user are specially concerned about quality in general.
- wodenokoto 11y ago
  The reason why funny videos as gif became big is the promise they give you that they are funny without sound, so you can play them in the office or during commute without fear that something will suddenly be noisy, or that something won't be easily understood. When gifs started breaking the promise of being fast to load, due to people sharing fairly large res animations, sites such as gfycat tried to replicate the promise of silent sketches, but with more modern technology. This is not bizare at all. Less is sometimes more.
  - SquareWheel 11y ago
    This is all certainly accomplishable without converting the video file twice. <video> tags support a mute attribute, and with minor javascript you can set a looping playback from a timestamp. Best of both worlds if you really want that. I can't help but feel these tools are evolving in the wrong direction. And not even in a "Stop liking what I don't like!" kind of way; simply that the solution could have been reached with far fewer steps.